Skip to main content
PMC home page
Scientific Reports logoLink to Scientific Reports
. 2019 Jun 24;9:9107. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-45549-6

Genomic, morphological and functional characterisation of novel bacteriophage FNU1 capable of disrupting Fusobacterium nucleatum biofilms

Mwila Kabwe 1, Teagan L Brown 1, Stuart Dashper 2, Lachlan Speirs 1, Heng Ku 1, Steve Petrovski 3, Hiu Tat Chan 4, Peter Lock 5, Joseph Tucci 1,✉
PMCID: PMC6591296  PMID: 31235721

Abstract

Fusobacterium nucleatum is an important oral bacterium that has been linked to the development of chronic diseases such as periodontitis and colorectal cancer. In periodontal disease, F. nucleatum forms the backbone of the polymicrobial biofilm and in colorectal cancer is implicated in aetiology, metastasis and chemotherapy resistance. The control of this bacteria may be important in assisting treatment of these diseases. With increased rates of antibiotic resistance globally, there is need for development of alternatives such as bacteriophages, which may complement existing therapies. Here we describe the morphology, genomics and functional characteristics of FNU1, a novel bacteriophage lytic against F. nucleatum. Transmission electron microscopy revealed FNU1 to be a large Siphoviridae virus with capsid diameter of 88 nm and tail of approximately 310 nm in length. Its genome was 130914 bp, with six tRNAs, and 8% of its ORFs encoding putative defence genes. FNU1 was able to kill cells within and significantly reduce F. nucleatum biofilm mass. The identification and characterisation of this bacteriophage will enable new possibilities for the treatment and prevention of F. nucleatum associated diseases to be explored.

Subject terms: Colon cancer, Biofilms, Infection control in dentistry, Bacteriophages, Applied microbiology

Introduction

Fusobacterium nucleatum is a Gram-negative facultative anaerobic bacillus that is a normal component of the oral microbiome. It has been associated with periodontal diseases1 as well as malignancies of the oral cavity, head and neck, oesophagus, cervix, stomach and colon2–4. This association with a range of malignancies has led to its referral as an “oncobacterium”4. In these diseases, F. nucleatum biofilms have been demonstrated to play a critical role.

Chronic periodontitis results from a dysbiosis in subgingival plaque biofilm communities that leads to the emergence of pathogenic species that dysregulate the host immune response leading to sustained and uncontrolled inflammation5,6. In chronic periodontitis, F. nucleatum has been shown to act as a backbone for pathogenic subgingival polymicrobial biofilms by forming a bridge between the more commensal early colonisers and the more pathogenic late colonisers1,7,8. This microbial biofilm is therefore responsible for the initiation and progression of chronic periodontitis9,10. Apart from their role in periodontitis, bacterial biofilms and microbiota organisation have also been associated with gut tumours11. In colorectal cancer, Fusobacterium has been demonstrated to be intimately involved in modulating the tumour immune microenvironment and recruiting myeloid cells that assist in tumorigenesis, tumour cell proliferation and metastasis12, modulating autophagy and resistance to chemotherapies13.

Current treatment of periodontal disease is mechanical debridement with antibiotics and antiseptics as adjuncts. However, this approach is not without controversy14, with the development of antibiotic resistance being a major caveat15, along with dysbiosis of oral microbiota contributing to inflammation and disease recurrence16,17. Current treatment of colorectal cancer includes surgery, chemotherapy and radiation therapy. In both cases, a targeted therapy that specifically attacks Fusobacterium in biofilms can potentially provide a new modality to combat these important diseases. Optimal treatment of biofilms in periodontitis and colorectal cancer would target specific bacteria in the biofilms, have minimal inflammatory effect, and a low risk for resistance development by bacteria.

Alternatives to antibiotics that have a narrow range in their bacterial targets, and capable of breaking down bacterial biofilms are bacteriophages18,19. Bacteriophages, which can be either lytic or temperate20, have been involved in an evolutionary arms race with bacteria, and as such are capable of overcoming or adapting to development of bacterial resistance against them21. Temperate bacteriophages are present in bacteria in a latent phase until certain conditions leading to bacterial cellular damage occurs e.g. exposure to ultra-violet radiation. Lytic bacteriophages, on the other hand, will lyse bacteria after infection and have potential for therapeutic use20. F. nucleatum is an important micro-organism in the structural composition of biofilms in periodontitis and colon cancer and as such provides a useful target for bacteriophages. To date, however, only temperate bacteriophages of F. nucleatum, ɸFunu1 and ɸFunu2, have been fully characterised22. There has been a single report of a lytic bacteriophage against F. nucleatum, Fnpɸ02 that has been isolated and phenotypically characterised23. Full genomic characterisation was not performed, and short amplicons within Fnpɸ02 showed homology ranging from 84% to 98% to Cutibacterium acnes (formally Propionibacterium acnes) bacteriophages. The genes where these amplicons were taken are highly conserved in C. acnes bacteriophages. C. acnes has been isolated frequently with F. nucleatum24 but no bacteriophages have been found that target both F. nucleatum and C. acnes.

Bacteriophages lytic against other types of bacteria such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa25, Escherichia coli26 and Streptococcus mutans27 have been shown to be able to disrupt mono-biofilms formed by their respective hosts. The potential exists for use of bacteriophages against biofilms in periodontal infection18,19 and colon cancer. We describe here the full genomic and morphological characterisation of a novel lytic bacteriophage, FNU1, which is capable of disrupting existing F. nucleatum biofilms. This bacteriophage has a novel genome (NCBI Genbank Accession Number: MK554696), with little homology to other viruses, and offers the potential for development to prevent and treat F. nucleatum-associated oral disease and cancers.

Methods

Ethics

All methods were performed in accordance with the La Trobe University Ethics, Biosafety and Integrity guidelines and regulations. Informed consent was obtained from participants for their involvement and use of samples in this study. The study protocols were approved by the La Trobe University Ethics Committee, reference number: S17-112.

Fusobacterium nucleatum bacterial growth conditions

Fusobacterium nucleatum (ATCC 10953) that had been completely characterised28 and previously studied in a polymicrobial biofilm29 was used for all experiments. The cultures were grown in brain heart infusion media (BHI; Oxoid, Australia) supplemented with 0.5% cysteine (Sigma, Australia) and 0.5% haemin (Sigma, Australia) in either broth or agar. The cultures were grown anaerobically using anaerobic generating packs (AnaeroGen) (Oxoid, Australia) at 37 °C. For this study, the identity of the strain was confirmed using 16 S rRNA gene amplification and sequencing via U27F: 5′AGAGTTTGATCMTGGCTCAG3′ and U1492R: 5′AAGGAGGTGWTCCARCC 3′ primers30. The thermocycling conditions were 95 °C for 3 minutes, 32 cycles of 95 °C for 30 seconds, 60 °C for 30 seconds, and 72 °C for 90 seconds, with a final extension at 72 °C for 10 minutes. The amplicons were cleaned using QIAquick® PCR purification kits (Qiagen, Australia) and analysed by Sanger sequencing at the Australian Genome Research Facility (AGRF) in Queensland, Australia.

Bacteriophage isolation

Mouthwash samples were collected from dental practices in Bendigo (Victoria, Australia) and screened for the presence of lytic bacteriophages against F. nucleatum using the enrichment method in BHI broth according to Gill and Hyman31. Briefly, 100 µL of F. nucleatum grown previously in broth culture for 48 hours anaerobically was added to 1 mL of sample and 20 mL of broth and incubated anaerobically at 37 °C for seven days. The enrichment was filtered using a 0.20 µm cellulose acetate filter (Microanalytix, Australia) before spotting 10 µL of the filtrate on a freshly prepared lawn of F. nucleatum on 1% agar. The plate was incubated for 48 hours anaerobically at 37 °C. Observed plaques were excised and purified as described previously32. To test the host range of the purified bacteriophage, it was also spotted onto cultures of Streptococcus mutans, Porphyromonas gingivalis and C. acnes, which are all found in the oral cavity.

Electron microscopy

The purified bacteriophage particles were visualised using a JEOL JEM-2100 Transmission Electron Microscope (TEM) using 400-mesh carbon-coated copper grids (ProSciTech, Australia). The bacteriophage lysate was allowed to adsorb to the grid for 30 seconds before being washed with Milli-Q® water (Promega, Australia). The adsorbed particles were then negatively stained twice for 30 seconds with 2% [W/V] uranyl acetate (Sigma, Australia). Excess stain on the grids was removed using filter paper before being air dried for 20 minutes. The grid was visualised and images captured with a Gatan Orius SC200D 1 wide-angle camera (Gatan Microscopy Suite and Digital Micrograph Imaging software version 2.3.2.888.0) at 200 kV. Further image analysis was achieved in ImageJ software version 1.8.0_112.

DNA extraction

Bacteriophage DNA was extracted from a highly concentrated purified lysate (approximately 1011 PFU mL−1) using the phenol-chloroform method as previously described32. All compounds used in the DNA extraction process were obtained from Sigma-Aldrich (Australia) unless stated otherwise. The concentrated bacteriophage stock was treated with 5 mmol L−1 of MgCl2 and 1.0 µL each of RNase A (Promega, Australia) and DNase I (Promega, Australia) to a final concentration of 10 µg mL−1. The solution was incubated at room temperature for 30 minutes to digest extraneous DNA or RNA. Polyethylene glycol 8000 (PEG) at 10% [W/V] and sodium chloride (NaCl at 1 g L−1) were added to the mixture and incubated overnight. The solution was centrifuged at 12000 × g for 5 minutes and pellets resuspended in 50 µL nuclease-free water (Promega, Australia). Bacteriophage proteins were digested by the addition of Proteinase K (50 µg mL−1), EDTA (20 mmol L−1) and sodium dodecyl sulphate (0.5% (v/v)) and incubating for one hour at 55 °C. An equal volume of phenol-chloroform-isoamyl alcohol (29:28:1) was then added to separate viral DNA from proteins. The mixture was gently vortexed and then centrifuged at 12000 × g for 10 minutes to isolate the aqueous phase. DNA was precipitated by adding an equal volume of isopropanol and incubating overnight at −20 °C. The DNA pellet was collected by centrifugation at 12000 × g for 5 minutes. The DNA pellet was washed in 70% ethanol, air-dried and finally resuspended in 30 µL of nuclease-free water (Promega, Australia).

Whole genome sequencing and in-silico analysis

Nextera® XT DNA sample preparation kits were used to prepare DNA libraries according to the manufacturer’s instructions (Illumina, Australia). The libraries were sequenced on an Illumina MiSeq® using a MiSeq® V2 reagent kit (300 cycles) with 150 basepair (bp) paired end reads. Sequence reads were assembled de novo using Geneious software version 11.0.5. Gene prediction was achieved by predicting open reading frames (ORFs) using ATG, GTG, and TTG start codons with a minimum nucleotide length of 50 bp. The ORFs were translated using Geneious and analysed by BLASTP (https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/) to ascribe potential function. The genome was further examined for the presence of transfer RNA (tRNA) and transfer-messenger RNA (tmRNA) using ARAGORN33 and tRNAscan-SE 2.034. Whole genome alignments and phylogenetic tree construction were performed in CLC genomics workbench version 9.5.4 by UPGMA algorithm with 1,000 replicate bootstrapping. The alignment included whole genomes of FNU1 and other bacteriophages specific for oral bacteria obtained from the NCBI Genbank.

Biofilm growth and quantification

Biofilm experiments were conducted anaerobically using BHI broth (Oxoid, Australia) supplemented with 0.5% cysteine, 0.5% haemin and 0.5% glucose in 96 well polystyrene plates (Greiner bio-one, Australia) coated with 0.5% gelatin. F. nucleatum was cultured for 48 hours and 100 µL of approximately 1 × 108 CFU mL−1 of F. nucleatum in exponential growth phase was added to each well before an equal volume of broth was added. The inoculated plates were incubated at 37 °C under anaerobic conditions and shaking at 120 rpm (Ratek Medium Orbital shaking incubator) for 4 days with sterile broth replenishment after 48 hours. To each well, 10 µL of bacteriophage FNU1 at 1011 PFU/mL was added after 4 days of biofilm formation. The biofilms were then incubated for a further 24 hours anaerobically at 37 °C before quantification assays completed as described previously35. Briefly, planktonic cells were washed off gently using MilliQ® deionised water (Merck, Australia) and the attached cells air dried. The attached biomass was then stained with 200 µL of 0.1% crystal violet for 5 minutes, washed using deionised water and air-dried for 5 minutes. An equal volume of ethanol (70%) was added to each well to decolourise the stained attached cells and the absorbance of the crystal-violet stained ethanol was evaluated at a wavelength of 600 nm (OD600) using a FlexStation 3 plate reader (Molecular Devices, United States).

Biofilm viability analysis

To test for viability, the F. nucleatum biofilm was grown on gelatin-coated microscope slides in the same manner as in the 96 well plates described above. SYBR gold® and Propidium Iodide (PI) were used to stain nucleic acids of live (membrane intact) and dead (membrane compromised) cells, respectively. Propidium Iodide (3 µL) was added to 100 µL of SYBR gold ® diluted (1:100) in dimethyl sulfoxide (Sigma, Australia). The mixture was applied to the biofilm on slides and incubated for 30 minutes. Excess PI and SYBR gold ® were rinsed off and slides air-dried before mounting with 5 µL Vectorshield® (Burlingame, USA) and coverslips. The slides were examined using an Olympus Fluoview Fv10i-confocal laser-scanning microscope (Olympus Life Science, Australia) with excitation wavelength at 485 nm. Green emission at fluorescence 535 nm and Red emission at fluorescence 635 nm were measured to indicate live versus dead cells on the slides.

Statistical analysis

The absorbance values quantifying the biofilms were analysed for normality using the Shapiro Wilk test and the medians compared by a paired T-test. The p-values of less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. All statistical analysis was performed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS version 25).

Results

Isolation and phenotypic characterisation of F. nucleatum bacteriophage FNU1

One mouthwash sample was found to produce clear plaques on 1% BHI agar. This was not observed on BHI with 1.5% agar. On the less concentrated 1% agar, clear round plaques of approximately 1 mm diameter were seen (Fig. 1A). The host range of FNU1 was restricted to F. nucleatum, and did not extend to other bacteria found in the oral cavity that we tested. TEM revealed a Siphoviridae bacteriophage with an icosahedral head of ≈88 nm in diameter and a long flexible tail terminating in a spike (Fig. 1B). The tail was approximately 310 nm long and ≈10 nm wide with a spike at the end, measuring an average of ≈20 nm long and ≈5 nm wide on the widest section.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

(A) Bacteriophage FNU1 spotted onto F. nucleatum culture on BHI with 1% agar. From the top left to the bottom right, each square represents a 10-fold serial dilution of FNU1. Clearing is seen at the highest concentrations with individual plaques discernible at subsequent dilutions. Each single plaque is ≈1 mm diameter. (B) TEM image of FNU1 revealing Siphoviridae bacteriophage with long ≈310 nm tail and icosahedral head diameter of ≈88 nm.

Genomic analysis

Bacteriophage DNA extraction and sequencing was performed on three separate occasions. On all occasions, a single contig of 130914 bp was obtained with coverage ranging from 121 to 2400 times. The process was repeated to ensure accuracy and because the sequence generated displayed low homology to any known bacteriophage or other genomes present in the database. The FNU1 bacteriophage genome (NCBI Genbank Accession Number: MK554696) was composed of 178 predicted ORFs of which 30.34% (54/178) had no significant homology to any sequences in the Genbank database and 38.20% (68/178) had some similarity but with E values of less than 1e-4. Of the remaining genome for bacteriophage FNU1, 31.46% (56/178 ORFs) had significant homology to other sequences, and of these, 71.43% (40/56 ORFs) had conserved domains. The overall GC content was 25.0%. The ORFs, their significant matches and E values are shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Putative FNU1 proteins and their homology to published sequences.

ORF Coordinates Size (aa) Homology to known sequences in NCBI database % Identity % Query cover E0 value
ORF1 1..1659 553 Gifsy-2 prophage tail fiber protein, partial [Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Newport str. SHSN010] 55 9 1.00E − 06
ORF2 1770..2267 166 No significant similarity found
ORF3 2264..2464 67 No significant similarity found
ORF4 2457..2855 133 Hybrid sensor histidine kinase/response regulator [Pedobacter heparinus] 47 28 9.40E + 00
ORF5 2857..3399 181 No significant similarity found
ORF6 3396..4223 276 Nucleotidyltransferase domain-containing protein [Balneola sp.] 35 92 2.00E − 29
ORF7 4217..4948 244 Hypothetical protein [Bacillus sp.] 35 97 2.00E − 35
ORF8 4950..5366 139 ComF family protein [Yoonia litorea] 31 38 8.30E − 01
ORF9 5575..5796 74 rfaE bifunctional protein [Desulfurobacterium thermolithotrophum DSM 11699] 27 60 7.60E − 01
ORF10 5884..6558 225 Hypothetical protein [Staphylococcus xylosus] 40 91 2.00E − 41
ORF11 6577..7395 273 Antirepressor [Fusobacterium necrophorum] 39 97 7.00E − 44
ORF12 8220..8831 204 Hypothetical protein [Olleya sp. VCSM12] 30 58 8.40E + 00
ORF13 8835..9557 241 No significant similarity found
ORF14 9557..11392 612 Hypothetical protein DRJ01_10315, partial [Bacteroidetes bacterium] 28 77 5.00E − 41
ORF15 11402..12949 516 Hypothetical protein DRJ01_10320 [Bacteroidetes bacterium] 29 96 1.00E − 41
ORF16 13878..14297 140 Methyl-CpG-binding domain-containing protein 9 [Cicer arietinum] 27 73 7.40E + 00
ORF17 14397..15473 359 No significant similarity found
ORF18 15775..16071 99 No significant similarity found
ORF19 16073..16444 124 Myosin-IB-like [Plutella xylostella] 31 50 8.50E + 00
ORF20 16437..16991 185 Hypothetical protein UU59_C0024G0011 [candidate division WWE3 bacterium GW2011_GWE1_41_27] 26 89 1.00E + 00
ORF21 16988..17623 212 No significant similarity found
ORF22 17665..18798 378 Type I secretion system permease/ATPase [Mesorhizobium sp. WSM4313] 44 16 3.30E + 00
ORF23 18866..19642 259 No significant similarity found
ORF24 19639..20283 215 No significant similarity found
ORF25 20293..26217 1975 Phage tail tape measure protein, TP901 family, core region [Cetobacterium ceti] 24 26 4.00E − 20
ORF26 26279..27295 339 Hypothetical protein [Brevibacillus fluminis] 43 12 7.90E + 00
ORF27 27390..28244 285 Hypothetical protein [Fusobacterium periodonticum] 42 70 4.00E − 31
ORF28 28300..28674 125 No significant similarity found
ORF29 29187..32576 1130 DUF1983 domain-containing protein [Rhizobium subbaraonis] 26 13 3.00E − 05
ORF30 33217..34371 385 Transposase [Fusobacterium sp. CM1] 84 97 0.00E + 00
ORF31 34498..35637 380 Hypothetical protein [Cetobacterium sp. ZWU0022] 41 43 1.00E − 26
ORF32 35640..36641 334 No significant similarity found
ORF33 36653..37438 262 Hypothetical protein AKJ51_02780 [candidate divison MSBL1 archaeon SCGC-AAA382A20] 25 29 2.70E + 00
ORF34 37551..38327 259 ATP/GTP-binding protein [Streptococcus parasanguinis] 37 96 5.00E − 26
ORF35 38303..38713 137 No significant similarity found
ORF36 39575..39889 105 Anaerobic ribonucleoside-triphosphate reductase [Fusobacterium perfoetens] 44 90 3.00E − 18
ORF37 41026..41247 74 No significant similarity found
ORF38 (41608..41883) 92 No significant similarity found
ORF39 (42013..42279) 89 Homoserine kinase [Fusobacterium sp. CM1] 47 47 8.60E + 00
ORF40 (42455..42775) 107 No significant similarity found
ORF41 (43304..43540) 79 No significant similarity found
ORF42 (44438..44680) 81 Serine–tRNA ligase [Candidatus Daviesbacteria bacterium RIFCSPHIGHO2_01_FULL_37_27] 40 53 7.40E + 00
ORF43 (44816..45196) 127 Hypothetical protein [Lactobacillus reuteri] 48 52 2.00E − 11
ORF44 (45315..45611) 99 Hypothetical protein [uncultured Mediterranean phage uvMED] 42 65 9.00E − 03
ORF45 (46128..46544) 139 No significant similarity found
ORF46 (46574..46885) 104 No significant similarity found
ORF47 (46903..47127) 75 Hypothetical protein J132_07476 [Termitomyces sp. J132] 37 65 6.20E + 00
ORF48 (47138..47506) 123 Alkaline phosphatase [Stackebrandtia nassauensis] 23 75 9.20E + 00
ORF49 (47521..47745) 75 No significant similarity found
ORF50 (48158..48322) 54 No significant similarity found
ORF51 (48727..49209) 161 Anaerobic ribonucleoside-triphosphate reductase activating protein [Fusobacterium sp.] 51 91 2.00E − 50
ORF52 (49458..49658) 67 No significant similarity found.
ORF53 (49670..49996) 108 Hypothetical protein DV735_g31 [Chaetothyriales sp. CBS 134920] 36 71 7.50E − 01
ORF54 (50006..50467) 154 No significant similarity found
ORF55 (50467..50955) 163 No significant similarity found
ORF56 (51137..52471) 445 Anaerobic ribonucleoside-triphosphate reductase [Fusobacterium perfoetens] 53 98 3.00E − 167
ORF57 (52800..53834) 345 GIY-YIG nuclease family protein [Clostridioides difficile] 42 55 1.00E − 35
ORF58 (53905..54813) 303 Anaerobic ribonucleoside-triphosphate reductase [Fusobacterium varium] 46 98 1.00E − 71
ORF59 (54800.55060) 87 Hypothetical protein OFPII_09960 [Osedax symbiont Rs1] 38 51 8.30E − 01
ORF60 (55064..55387) 108 No significant similarity found
ORF61 (55384..55851) 156 No significant similarity found
ORF62 (56004..56456) 151 No significant similarity found
ORF63 (56485..56724) 80 Mitochondrial carrier homolog 2 [Drosophila arizonae] 40 53 8.50E + 00
ORF64 (56733..56978) 82 Glycosyltransferase [Algoriphagus resistens] 36 59 8.10E − 01
ORF65 (56985..57296) 104 No significant similarity found
ORF66 (57298..57597) 100 No significant similarity found
ORF67 (58609..58989) 127 Outer membrane protein assembly factor BamA [Sutterella parvirubra] 27 62 3.40E + 00
ORF68 (59003..59752) 250 Hypothetical protein [Fusobacterium nucleatum] 33 31 1.70E − 02
ORF69 (59754..60326) 191 Hypothetical protein [Fusobacterium periodonticum] 37 32 8.60E − 01
ORF70 (60323..60697) 125 No significant similarity found
ORF71 (60676..60894) 73 ATP-dependent DNA ligase [Rhizophagus irregularis] 37 67 5.90E + 00
ORF72 (60916..61179) 88 Hypothetical protein [Desulfobacula toluolica] 26 70 5.60E − 01
ORF73 (61184..61369) 62 No significant similarity found
ORF74 (61359..61799) 147 Hypothetical protein SAMN05444672_10818 [Bacillus sp. OK838] 50 28 2.40E + 00
ORF75 (61796..62185) 62 No significant similarity found
ORF76 (62176..62544) 123 No significant similarity found
ORF77 (62560..63000) 147 No significant similarity found
ORF78 (63013..63480) 156 Molecular chaperone DnaJ [Paenibacillus sp. Soil724D2] 32 91 2.00E − 19
ORF79 (63778..64101) 108 DUF1874 domain-containing protein [Defluviitalea phaphyphila] 57 97 2.00E − 31
ORF80 (64133..64306) 58 Hypothetical protein HMPREF1127_1046 [Fusobacterium necrophorum subsp. funduliforme Fnf 1007] 49 82 1.00E − 07
ORF81 (64450..64671) 74 DNA segregation ATPase FtsK/SpoIIIE, S-DNA-T family [Crenotalea thermophila] 45 56 7.10E + 00
ORF82 (64738..65517) 260 Radical SAM protein [Clostridium botulinum] 49 94 5.00E − 79
ORF83 (65598..68396) 933 Hypothetical protein [Fusobacterium necrophorum] 36 6 8.80E − 01
ORF84 (68490..68984) 165 Hypothetical protein [Fusobacterium hwasookii] 41 88 6.00E − 32
ORF85 (68984..69172) 63 Hypothetical protein [Fusobacterium periodonticum] 68 98 3.00E − 22
ORF86 (69291..69605) 105 Hypothetical protein YYE_03786 [Plasmodium vinckei vinckei] 36 62 5.20E − 01
ORF87 (69589..69942) 118 Na + /H + antiporter [Porphyromonas sp. oral taxon 279] 26 73 3.40E + 00
ORF88 (69911..70651) 247 No significant similarity found
ORF89 (70663..71040) 126 Hypothetical protein [Lactobacillus sp. CBA3605] 33 41 5.30E + 00
ORF90 (71042..71473) 144 Guanylate-binding protein 6-like [Eptesicus fuscus] 37 48 2.90E − 01
ORF91 (71466..71660) 65 Hypothetical protein [Rhodopirellula sp. SWK7] 43 64 1.40E + 00
ORF92 (71647..71922) 92 Tyrosine recombinase XerC [Chloracidobacterium thermophilum] 41 47 8.60E + 00
ORF93 (72047..72946) 300 No significant similarity found
ORF94 (73058..73651) 198 Hypothetical protein CTER_0441 [Ruminiclostridium cellobioparum subsp. termitidis CT1112] 33 43 5.50E + 00
ORF95 (73706..76168) 821 Polymerase protein [candidate division WWE3 bacterium GW2011_GWC2_44_9] 30 37 3.00E − 28
ORF96 (76155..77018) 288 Guanylate kinase [Emticicia sp. MM] 39 62 6.00E − 24
ORF97 (77327..78076) 250 MerR family transcriptional regulator [Bacillus sp. EB01] 23 54 1.50E + 00
ORF98 (78095..78961) 289 Fic family protein [Fusobacterium nucleatum] 38 66 8.00E − 30
ORF99 (78937..79356) 140 Hypothetical protein BpsS36_00041 [Bacillus phage vB_BpsS-36] 42 94 6.00E − 18
ORF100 (79396..79920) 175 Siphovirus Gp157 family protein [Fusobacterium nucleatum] 51 89 3.00E − 39
ORF101 (79933..80406) 158 No significant similarity found
ORF102 (80372..80731) 120 Hypothetical protein TBLA_0I01080 [Tetrapisispora blattae CBS 6284] 31 66 9.50E + 00
ORF103 (80744..81175) 144 O-acetyl-ADP-ribose deacetylase 1-like [Branchiostoma belcheri] 44 98 3.00E − 36
ORF104 (81177..81731) 185 Hypothetical protein [Clostridium botulinum] 34 96 1.00E − 20
ORF105 (81819..82436) 206 Hypothetical protein [Fusobacterium nucleatum] 32 83 2.00E − 13
ORF106 (82601..83236) 212 Hypothetical protein [Clostridium sp. 12(A)] 49 85 7.00E − 53
ORF107 (83330..84430) 367 DNA cytosine methyltransferase [Methanobrevibacter ruminantium] 31 98 9.00E − 57
ORF108 (84452..84640) 63 No significant similarity found
ORF109 (84691..86247) 519 Hypothetical protein FUSO4_11650 [Fusobacterium necrophorum DJ-1] 49 97 7.00E − 166
ORF110 (86400..86783) 128 Isovaleryl-CoA dehydrogenase [Erythrobacter gangjinensis] 40 50 1.30E − 01
ORF111 (86773..87030) 86 Hypothetical protein ABS80_03590 [Pseudonocardia sp. SCN 72–51] 33 60 6.20E − 01
ORF112 (87053..88336) 428 ATP dependent DNA ligase domain protein [Clostridioides difficile] 37 97 2.00E − 67
ORF113 (88329..88946) 206 VP1 protein, partial [Coxsackievirus A16] 33 23 1.70E + 00
ORF114 (88947..89186) 80 No significant similarity found
ORF115 (89161..89643) 161 DNA repair protein MmcB-related protein [Fusobacterium] 30 88 1.00E − 15
ORF116 (89640..89858) 73 No significant similarity found
ORF117 (89842..90486) 215 Hypothetical protein [Fusobacterium necrophorum] 45 80 1.00E − 41
ORF118 (90575..91204) 210 Hypothetical protein [Adhaeribacter aquaticus] 25 59 4.30E + 00
ORF119 (91309..92733) 475 Hypothetical protein [Ralstonia phage RSP15] 27 67 2.00E − 25
ORF120 (92743..93252) 170 dUTP diphosphatase [Clostridium bartlettii CAG:1329] 41 99 5.00E − 28
ORF121 (93249..94526) 426 Hypothetical protein [Bacillus endophyticus] 24 73 8.00E − 26
ORF122 (94529..95317) 263 ORF6N domain-containing protein [Fusobacterium nucleatum] 43 77 5.00E − 44
ORF123 (95417..96418) 334 DNA primase (bacterial type) [Chlamydia trachomatis] 39 50 1.00E − 18
ORF124 (96431..97912) 494 DNA helicase [Clostridium botulinum] 29 54 4.00E − 25
ORF125 (97909..98334) 142 epsC Polysaccharide biosynthesis protein, protein-tyrosine-phosphatase [Lactococcus lactis subsp. lactis] 33 52 1.90E + 00
ORF126 (98404..99702) 432 No significant similarity found
ORF127 (99709..100146) 146 Phage antirepressor [Clostridium innocuum] 41 79 4.00E − 22
ORF128 (100272..100976) 235 ATP-binding protein [Peptoniphilus obesi] 37 91 2.00E − 38
ORF129 (100986..101510) 175 Hypothetical protein DLH72_04485 [Candidatus Gracilibacteria bacterium] 36 96 4.00E − 17
ORF130 (101497..101679) 61 No significant similarity found
ORF131 (101885..102676) 264 DNA adenine methylase [Ruminococcus albus] 39 92 3.00E − 41
ORF132 (102741..103346) 202 Ribonuclease HI [Fusobacterium russii] 53 99 1.00E − 63
ORF133 (103346..103561) 72 No significant similarity found
ORF134 (103545..103769) 75 Hypothetical protein K457DRAFT_16159 [Mortierella elongata AG-77] 40 46 6.00E + 00
ORF135 (103871..104125) 85 No significant similarity found
ORF136 (104118..104633) 172 Hypothetical protein [Selenomonas bovis] 52 25 5.00E − 04
ORF137 (104773..104997) 75 Multidrug efflux RND transporter permease subunit [Motiliproteus coralliicola] 30 98 5.50E + 00
ORF138 (104997..105212) 72 Peptide ABC transporter substrate-binding protein [Vibrio gangliei] 38 61 4.80E + 00
ORF139 (105199..105858) 220 Transcriptional regulator, TetR family [Clostridium sp. MSTE9] 30 37 1.60E + 00
ORF140 (105871..106029) 53 Hypothetical protein L915_04856, partial [Phytophthora parasitica] 46 49 2.60E + 00
ORF141 (106133..106942) 270 Prohibitin family protein [Fusobacterium periodonticum] 77 99 3.00E − 150
ORF142 (106942..107316) 125 Hypothetical protein [Fusobacterium necrophorum] 48 37 1.40E + 00
ORF143 (107317..107580) 88 Type II toxin-antitoxin system HipA family toxin [Prevotella sp. ICM33] 29 75 5.20E + 00
ORF144 (107584..108336) 251 Hypothetical protein [Corynebacterium matruchotii] 52 98 2.00E − 89
ORF145 (108336..108842) 169 Hypothetical protein [Fusobacterium nucleatum] 50 33 1.00E − 06
ORF146 (108939..109391) 151 Furin-1 precursor [Schistosoma japonicum] 32 53 9.00E − 02
ORF147 (109396..109905) 170 No significant similarity found
ORF148 (109906..110742) 279 Bifunctional methylenetetrahydrofolate dehydrogenase/methenyltetrahydrofolate cyclohydrolase [Agrococcus casei] 29 97 3.00E − 13
ORF149 (110730..111284) 185 Hypothetical protein A2Y22_00670 [Clostridiales bacterium GWD2_32_59] 27 74 5.00E + 00
ORF150 (111332..111955) 208 TPA: tRNA (adenine-N(6)-)-methyltransferase [Candidatus Gastranaerophilales bacterium HUM_13] 39 92 3.00E − 40
ORF151 (112023..114062) 680 AAA family ATPase [Pseudodesulfovibrio profundus] 28 75 4.00E − 29
ORF152 (114111..115580) 490 Hypothetical protein [Clostridium botulinum] 37 85 1.00E − 69
ORF153 115966..116148 61 No significant similarity found
ORF154 116254..116772 173 No significant similarity found
ORF155 116783..117202 140 No significant similarity found
ORF156 117202..117636 145 Heparinase [Paenibacillus macerans] 33 37 4.20E + 00
ORF157 117630..117812 61 No significant similarity found
ORF158 117915..118142 76 No significant similarity found
ORF159 118123..119262 380 Hypothetical protein [Fusobacterium mortiferum] 68 31 4.00E − 40
ORF160 119268..119579 104 Glycosyltransferase [Kingella kingae] 35 62 7.00E + 00
ORF161 119675..119983 103 Hypothetical protein [Streptococcus sobrinus] 35 86 5.00E − 15
ORF162 119997..120386 130 Hypothetical protein [Streptococcus oralis] 32 46 3.20E − 02
ORF163 120534..120965 144 Hypothetical protein [Fusobacterium periodonticum] 33 84 3.00E − 10
ORF164 120975..121694 240 No significant similarity found
ORF165 121708..122073 122 TonB-dependent receptor [Mucilaginibacter sp. OK098] 31 87 3.70E + 00
ORF166 122070..124286 739 Metallophosphoesterase [Leptotrichia hofstadii] 49 99 0.00E + 00
ORF167 124339..124518 60 No significant similarity found
ORF168 125623..125841 73 No significant similarity found
ORF169 125880..126119 80 Glutaredoxin [Fusobacterium nucleatum subsp. nucleatum] 56 78 8.00E − 17
ORF170 126477..126656 60 No significant similarity found
ORF171 126614..126901 96 HU family DNA-binding protein [Neisseria weaveri] 44 93 5.00E − 17
ORF172 127245..128036 264 ORF6N domain-containing protein [Fusobacterium necrophorum] 73 46 3.00E − 58
ORF173 128097..128273 59 No significant similarity found
ORF174 128354..129103 250 Hypothetical protein CANCADRAFT_31211 [Tortispora caseinolytica NRRL Y-17796] 33 23 9.00E + 00
ORF175 129197..129547 117 DUF1353 domain-containing protein [Fusobacterium necrophorum] 47 76 6.00E − 21
ORF176 129564..129980 139 Hypothetical protein [Fusobacterium necrophorum] 39 90 2.00E − 23
ORF177 129980..130537 186 N-acetylmuramoyl-L-alanine amidase [Fusobacterium necrophorum] 44 95 1.00E − 36
ORF178 130553..130858 102 Hypothetical protein [Aeromonas enteropelogenes] 40 50 1.40E + 00
Open in a new tab

Functional genomics predictions were mapped using the Geneious software 11.0.5 (Fig. 2) with putative structural genes (pink), putative DNA manipulation genes (green), putative regulatory genes (blue), putative lytic genes (red) and hypothetical genes (yellow) marked. Although the majority of genes couldn’t be assigned functionality, a pattern of clustering of related genes was observed (Fig. 2). Putative structural genes appeared to be orientated in a clockwise direction while the rest were orientated anticlockwise. The putative structural genes were interspaced with putative lysis and regulatory genes, as well as other genes that have no known functionality or homology located between sites 1 and 40000 bp in the genome map (Fig. 2). The genes in anticlockwise orientation were comprised mostly of putative DNA manipulation genes located between sites 65000 and 130000 bp in the genome map (Fig. 2) that may be involved in the infection and packaging processes, as well as a cluster of putative lysis genes (located between 45000 and 55000 bp).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

FNU1 functional genome map with putative structural genes (pink), putative DNA manipulation genes (green), putative regulatory genes (blue), putative lytic genes (red) and hypothetical genes (yellow) marked. Although majority of genes couldn’t be assigned functionality, a pattern of clustering of related genes was observed. Genes in anticlockwise orientation were comprised mostly of putative DNA manipulation genes (between 65000 and 130000 bp and possibly involved in infection & packaging), as well as cluster of putative lysis genes (between 45000 and 55000 bp).

tRNAs and tmRNAs in the F. nucleatum bacteriophage FNU1 genome

There were six putative tRNAs identified using ARAGON and tRNAscan-SE 2.0. These included five that did not have any introns and one with a C-loop intron. The tRNA with a C-loop intron was a histidine-tRNA of 74 bp and GC content of 43.2%. The other five introns included an isoleucine-tRNA (91 bp, GC = 36.3%), a proline-tRNA (76 bp, GC = 47.4%), a serine-tRNA (87 bp, GC = 43.7%), a tyrosine-tRNA (89 bp, GC = 40.4%) and a cysteine-tRNA (74 bp, GC = 37.8). All introns were in a single cluster located at 44553 bp to 45210 bp in the genome (Fig. 2). No tmRNA genes were found in the FNU1 genome sequence.

Putative bacteriophage FNU1 defence against bacterial anti-phage systems

Conserved protein family (Pfam) prediction on BLASTp analysis indicated there were 13 ORFs with predicted Pfam domains that may be involved in bacteriophage FNU1 evading host immunity (Table 2). These included at least three genes each putatively encoding antirepressors, methylation genes and toxin-antitoxin systems. According to the CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) database (http://crispr.i2bc.paris-saclay.fr/)36, no CRISPR regions were found in the phage FNU1 genome.

Table 2.

Putative phage defence mechanisms against bacterial anti-phage immunity.

ORF Coordinates Protein family Pfam E- value Function
ORF10 5884..6558 Phage regulatory protein Rha (Phage_pRha) (N-terminal) 09669 2.95E-22 Phage regulatory proteins usually found in temperate phages and bacterial prophage regions and include rha genes that interfere with bacterial infection in strains that lack integration host factor [52]
ORF10 5884..6558 ORF6C domain (C-terminal) 10552 1.14E-13 Antirepressor protein [52]
ORF11 6577..7395 Phage antirepressor protein KilAC domain 03374 9.63E-29 Antirepressor protein [52]
ORF27 27390..28244 Phage antirepressor protein KilAC domain 03374 8.61E-18 Antirepressor protein [52]
ORF34 37551..38327 AAA domain, putative AbiEii toxin 13304 7.61E-05 Type IV toxin antitoxin system that may be part of the abortive phage resistance TA system [53]
ORF82 (64738..65517) Radical SAM superfamily 04055 2.25E-09 Radical SAM proteins catalyse different reactions from unusual methylations, isomerisation, sulphur insertion, ring formation, anaerobic oxidation and protein radical formation[54]
ORF98 (78095..78961) Fic/DOC family 02661 5.54E-11 This family consists of the Fic (Filamentation Induced by cAMP) protein and DOC (death on curing) proteins. The Fic protein is involved in the regulation of cell division via folate metabolism. DOC will cure bacterial cells of prophage and also target protein synthesis machinery and inducing a reversible growth arrest. This arrest can be reversed by its antitoxin partner Phd (prevents host death) [55]
ORF100 (79396..79920) Siphovirus Gp157 05565 1.79E-33 Bacteria that contain genes coding siphovirus GP157, a protein of Streptococcus thermophiles SFi phages are thought to have an increased resistance to phage infection[56]
ORF107 (83330..84430) C-5 cytosine-specific DNA methylase 00145 4.45E-49 These enzymes specifically methylate the C-5 carbon of cytosines in DNA to produce C5-methylcytosine [57]
ORF127 (99709..100146) Phage antirepressor protein KilAC domain 03374 3.69E-07 An antirepressor protein[52]
ORF131 (101885..102676) D12 class N6 adenine-specific DNA methyltransferase 02086 5.16E-04 These enzymes will specifically methylate the amino group at the C-6 position of adenines in DNA [58]
ORF132 (102741..103346) Caulimovirus viroplasmin (N - Terminal) 01693 3.89E-04 These form the main components of viral inclusion bodies where viral assembly, DNA synthesis and accumulation takes place [59]
ORF159 118123..119262 Phage regulatory protein Rha (Phage_pRha) (N-terminal) 09669 2.28E-04 Phage regulatory proteins that are usually found in temperate phages and bacterial prophage regions and include rha gens that interferes with bacterial infection in strains that lack integration host factor.[52]
ORF159 118123..119262 Phage antirepressor protein KilAC domain (C - Terminal) 03374 2.68E-15 Antirepressor protein [52].
ORF172 127245..128036 ORF6N domain (N-terminal) 10543 1.23E-16 Antirepressor protein [52].
ORF172 127245..128036 Phage antirepressor protein KilAC domain (C - Terminal) 03374 1.52E-18 Antirepressor protein [52].
Open in a new tab

Phylogenetic relatedness with other bacteriophage targeting oral bacteria

The genome of bacteriophage FNU1 showed little homology to any bacteriophage deposited in NCBI Genbank. To understand the relatedness of FNU1 to other bacteriophages, a phylogenetic tree was constructed. Whole genomes of bacteriophages targeting oral bacteria were downloaded from NCBI Genbank and compared with FNU1 as they are found in the same microenvironment. Bacteriophage FNU1 was found to be most closely related to Streptococcus mutans and Streptococcus spp. bacteriophages (Fig. 3). The only F. nucleatum bacteriophage genome in the database is the prophage ΦFunu1, which is phylogenetically distant from FNU1, sharing very little genetic homology. ΦFunu1 branches off earlier in the phylogenetic tree and is most closely related to P1, a bacteriophage for Lactobacillus plantarum and the bacteriophage ΦEf11 for Enterococcus faecalis (Fig. 3).

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Phylogenetic analysis of FNU1 in relation to other bacteriophages associated with oral bacteria. FNU1 was most closely related to Streptococcus mutans and other Streptococcus spp. bacteriophages.

Effect of bacteriophage FNU1 on F. nucleatum biofilm mass

To evaluate the potential application of bacteriophage FNU1 in the treatment of gastro-intestinal biofilms, a biofilm model of F. nucleatum was generated as described above. The median [Inter-Quartile Range (IQR)] absorbance at OD600 of the biofilm without bacteriophage treatment was 2.17 (1.81–2.21). This was significantly higher (p < 0.001) than that following FNU1 bacteriophage treatment for 24 h, where median (IQR) was 0.76 (0.71–0.89), or 35% of the untreated value (Fig. 4). The bacteriophage treated biofilm had a significantly higher absorbance (p < 0.001) compared to the negative control (no bacteria control): median (IQR) absorbance at OD600 of the negative control was 0.14 (0.14–0.15) (Fig. 4). Subtracting absorbance readings for the negative control (0.14) from both the treated (0.76) and untreated (2.17) biofilms results in untreated biofilms having an OD of 2.03 and treated biofilms having an OD of 0.62. Therefore, FNU1 phage treatment results in a 70% reduction in F. nucleatum biomass.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Significant reduction of Fusobacterium nucleatum biofilm treated with FNU1 bacteriophage.

Viability of the F. nucleatum biofilm after treatment with bacteriophage FNU1

To evaluate the viability of F. nucleatum in the biofilms following treatment with bacteriophage FNU1, live/dead staining using SYBR® gold and propidium iodide was applied to biofilms formed on microscope slides and imaged using confocal microscopy. The untreated biofilm had predominantly green fluorescent cells, indicating structurally intact membranes. The bacteriophage treated biofilm showed few cells, most of which were red/yellow, indicating structurally compromised membranes, and only very few cells with intact membranes (green) in clumps (Fig. 5).

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

Confocal images of SYBR® gold and propidium iodide staining following FNU1 bacteriophage treated (A) and untreated (B) Fusobacterium nucleatum biofilm.

Discussion

The novel bacteriophage FNU1 genome is over 130 kb in length and displays little homology to other known viral genomes. Because of this, it is difficult to describe any potential synteny between FNU1 and other bacteriophage genomes, although organisational similarity to some of the more abundant bacteriophages found in the human gut exists, where the structural and infection/packaging genes are in opposite orientation to each other37. The relatively large genome and structure of the virus, with a capsid of approximately 90 nm diameter and tail of over 300 nm in length, may have contributed to the fact that it was only able to produce clear discernible plaques when the concentration of agar it was grown on was reduced from 1.5% to 1%. The presence of several tRNAs in the FNU1 genome may indicate the requirement for additional translational mechanisms to complement those provided by the host cell. In its phylogeny, bacteriophage FNU1 clusters more closely to several bacteriophages against the oral pathogen S. mutans, and distantly from the only F. nucleatum bacteriophage in the database, the prophage ΦFunu1.

FNU1 has almost 8% of its ORFs devoted to putative defence against bacterial anti-bacteriophage systems, with several genes each coding for putative antirepressors, methylation genes to avoid restriction modification and toxin-antitoxin mechanisms that may prevent abortive infections. While some bacteriophages such as Vibrio cholerae ICP1 are known to carry CRISPR sequences which may contribute to their virulence38, the FNU1 genome had no such recognisable regions. All the F. nucleatum strains in the CRISPR database (http://crispr.i2bc.paris-saclay.fr/)36 have one CRISPR with the number of spacers ranging from 3 to 52, (average approximately 25 spacers). Porphyromonas gingivalis, the major etiologic agent associated with chronic periodontitis, and for which no lytic bacteriophage has yet been isolated, has very extensive CRISPR immune mechanisms39,40. Each P. gingivalis strain in the database has more than one confirmed CRISPR locus (some with a maximum of five), with the total number of spacers in each bacterial strain ranging from 14 to 136 (http://crispr.i2bc.paris-saclay.fr/). This contrasts with C. acnes strains, where none have a confirmed CRISPR locus, (although some are denoted as having possible CRISPR regions based on the database’s algorithms, filtering sequence length, matching repeats and amount of successive repeats)36, and against which there are over 80 reported bacteriophages41.

In this report, we demonstrate the capacity for FNU1 to disrupt established F. nucleatum biofilms. Our results show the capacity of FNU1 to effectively kill cells within a F. nucleatum biofilm, and although not as complex as polymicrobial biofilms shown to develop during periodontitis8,29,42, this work suggests that FNU1 has potential for application in more complex systems. F. nucleatum is one of the late colonisers in oral polymicrobial biofilms. Its capacity to co-aggregate intergenerically with representatives of all oral bacterial species8 indicates it provides the necessary scaffolding for these communities to grow, develop and flourish synergistically. We have previously shown that diverse bacteriophages are able to be formulated into dosage forms such as lozenges and pastes, and subsequently released to kill underlying bacteria in-vitro43. Both of these dosage forms would provide very useful strategies for delivery of bacteriophage such as FNU1 for testing in the treatment of periodontitis and other diseases associated with F. nucleatum, as they allow slower “release” of bacteriophage into the oral cavity, and in the case of toothpastes, can be used to gently massage the bacteriophage onto the tooth and gum surface.

Finally, F. nucleatum has recently been described as an oncobacterium, associated with a range of human cancers4. The organism has a causal role in tumorigenesis12 and also confers resistance to chemotherapy13. In their animal model, Bullman S. et al. demonstrated that treatment with metronidazole, an antibiotic that their F. nucleatum strains were sensitive to, reduced cancer cell proliferation and tumour growth. However, this approach of using antibiotics to kill Fusobacterium may be unsuitable clinically, as it has been previously demonstrated that perturbation of microbiota by antibiotics leads to reduced efficacy of chemoimmunotherapy for a range of cancers, including colorectal cancer44,45. On the other hand, the discovery of FNU1, with capacity to disrupt F. nucleatum biofilms, represents a potentially feasible means of targeted removal of this bacteria for microbiota manipulation in colorectal cancer management. In addition, while it has been suggested that bacteriophages in the gut virome may alter the microbiome such that F. nucleatum is able to overgrow and facilitate neoplasia in colon cells46, bacteriophages such as FNU1 may assist in overcoming such dysbiosis. That bacteriophages can be successfully formulated into suppositories, as we have previously shown32, may assist in delivery.

In conclusion, this work describes the first full genome sequence and functional characterisation of a novel lytic bacteriophage against F. nucleatum, a bacterium associated with periodontitis as well as cancers of the GI tract such as colon cancer. FNU1 is unique in that it shares very little homology with other known bacteriophages. Functionally, FNU1 is capable of breaking down F. nucleatum biofilms and lysing the bacterial cells composing the biofilm. This bacteriophage, then, is able to be tested in more complex oral biofilm assays and could potentially be tested in-vivo to assess capacity to treat periodontitis, as well as possibly assist in colon cancer treatment, following formulation in appropriate dosage forms.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the La Trobe University Bio-imaging facility (La Trobe Institute for Molecular Science) for the TEM images, and the contribution of Elizabeth Chewe to this research.

Author Contributions

J.T. and S.D. designed project, J.T. and M.K. Project development, J.T., S.P., S.D., T.B., and P.L. Technical advice, M.K. and H.K. Sample screening, M.K., T.B. and S.P. Genomics, M.K., L.S. and P.L. Biofilm and Imaging, M.K., J.T., H.T.C. and S.D. Manuscript writing, and M.K., J.T., H.T.C., S.D., T.B. and S.P. Manuscript editing.

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Footnotes

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Change history

7/13/2023

A Correction to this paper has been published: 10.1038/s41598-023-38412-2

References

  • 1.Bolstad AI, Jensen HB, Bakken V. Taxonomy, biology, and periodontal aspects of Fusobacterium nucleatum. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1996;9:55–71. doi: 10.1128/CMR.9.1.55. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Chang Chunrong, Geng Fengxue, Shi Xiaoting, Li Yuchao, Zhang Xue, Zhao Xida, Pan Yaping. The prevalence rate of periodontal pathogens and its association with oral squamous cell carcinoma. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology. 2018;103(3):1393–1404. doi: 10.1007/s00253-018-9475-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Yamaoka Y, et al. Fusobacterium nucleatum as a prognostic marker of colorectal cancer in a Japanese population. J Gastroenterol. 2018;53:517–524. doi: 10.1007/s00535-017-1382-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Brennan Caitlin A., Garrett Wendy S. Fusobacterium nucleatum — symbiont, opportunist and oncobacterium. Nature Reviews Microbiology. 2018;17(3):156–166. doi: 10.1038/s41579-018-0129-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Hajishengallis G, Lamont RJ. Beyond the red complex and into more complexity: the polymicrobial synergy and dysbiosis (PSD) model of periodontal disease etiology. Mol Oral Microbiol. 2012;27:409–419. doi: 10.1111/j.2041-1014.2012.00663.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Hajishengallis G, et al. Low-abundance biofilm species orchestrates inflammatory periodontal disease through the commensal microbiota and complement. Cell Host Microbe. 2011;10:497–506. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2011.10.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Bakaletz LO. Developing animal models for polymicrobial diseases. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2004;2:552–568. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro928. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Kolenbrander PE, Palmer RJ, Jr., Periasamy S, Jakubovics NS. Oral multispecies biofilm development and the key role of cell-cell distance. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2010;8:471–480. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro2381. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Kolenbrander P. E., Andersen R. N., Blehert D. S., Egland P. G., Foster J. S., Palmer R. J. Communication among Oral Bacteria. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews. 2002;66(3):486–505. doi: 10.1128/MMBR.66.3.486-505.2002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Kinane DF, Stathopoulou PG, Papapanou PN. Periodontal diseases. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2017;3:17038. doi: 10.1038/nrdp.2017.38. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Dejea CM, et al. Microbiota organization is a distinct feature of proximal colorectal cancers. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2014;111:18321–18326. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1406199111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Bullman S, et al. Analysis of Fusobacterium persistence and antibiotic response in colorectal cancer. Science. 2017;358:1443–1448. doi: 10.1126/science.aal5240. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Yu T, et al. Fusobacterium nucleatum Promotes Chemoresistance to Colorectal Cancer by Modulating Autophagy. Cell. 2017;170:548–563 e516. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2017.07.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.European Federation of Periodontology. DEBATE: Is it time for a rethink on the use of antibiotics to treat periodontitis?, https://www.efp.org/newsupdate/time-for-a-rethink-on-use-of-antibiotics (2016).
  • 15.Dabija-Wolter G, Al-Zubaydi SS, Mohammed MMA, Bakken V, Bolstad AI. The effect of metronidazole plus amoxicillin or metronidazole plus penicillin V on periodontal pathogens in an in vitro biofilm model. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2018;4:6–12. doi: 10.1002/cre2.96. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Lamont RJ, Koo H, Hajishengallis G. The oral microbiota: dynamic communities and host interactions. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2018;16:745–759. doi: 10.1038/s41579-018-0089-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Shaikh HFM, Patil SH, Pangam TS, Rathod KV. Polymicrobial synergy and dysbiosis: An overview. J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2018;22:101–106. doi: 10.4103/jisp.jisp_385_17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Shlezinger M, et al. Phage Therapy: A New Horizon in the Antibacterial Treatment of Oral Pathogens. Curr Top Med Chem. 2017;17:1199–1211. doi: 10.2174/1568026616666160930145649. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Szafranski SP, Winkel A, Stiesch M. The use of bacteriophages to biocontrol oral biofilms. J Biotechnol. 2017;250:29–44. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiotec.2017.01.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Salmond GP, Fineran PC. A century of the phage: past, present and future. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2015;13:777–786. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro3564. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Shabbir MA, et al. Bacteria vs. Bacteriophages: Parallel Evolution of Immune Arsenals. Front Microbiol. 2016;7:1292. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2016.01292. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Cochrane K, et al. Complete genome sequences and analysis of the Fusobacterium nucleatum subspecies animalis 7-1 bacteriophage Funu1 and Funu2. Anaerobe. 2016;38:125–129. doi: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2015.10.013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Machuca P, Daille L, Vines E, Berrocal L, Bittner M. Isolation of a novel bacteriophage specific for the periodontal pathogen Fusobacterium nucleatum. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2010;76:7243–7250. doi: 10.1128/AEM.01135-10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Saito Y, et al. Stimulation of Fusobacterium nucleatum biofilm formation by Porphyromonas gingivalis. Oral Microbiol Immunol. 2008;23:1–6. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-302X.2007.00380.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Sharma G, et al. Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm: potential therapeutic targets. Biologicals. 2014;42:1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.biologicals.2013.11.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Ribeiro KVG, et al. Bacteriophage Isolated from Sewage Eliminates and Prevents the Establishment of Escherichia Coli Biofilm. Adv Pharm Bull. 2018;8:85–95. doi: 10.15171/apb.2018.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Dalmasso M, et al. Isolation of a Novel Phage with Activity against Streptococcus mutans Biofilms. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0138651. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0138651. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Karpathy SE, et al. Genome sequence of Fusobacterium nucleatum subspecies polymorphum - a genetically tractable fusobacterium. PLoS One. 2007;2:e659. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000659. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Dashper S.G., Shen P., Sim C.P.C., Liu S.W., Butler C.A., Mitchell H.L., D’Cruze T., Yuan Y., Hoffmann B., Walker G.D., Catmull D.V., Reynolds C., Reynolds E.C. CPP-ACP Promotes SnF2 Efficacy in a Polymicrobial Caries Model. Journal of Dental Research. 2018;98(2):218–224. doi: 10.1177/0022034518809088. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Turner S, Pryer KM, Miao VP, Palmer JD. Investigating deep phylogenetic relationships among cyanobacteria and plastids by small subunit rRNA sequence analysis. J Eukaryot Microbiol. 1999;46:327–338. doi: 10.1111/j.1550-7408.1999.tb04612.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Gill JJ, Hyman P. Phage choice, isolation, and preparation for phage therapy. Curr Pharm Biotechnol. 2010;11:2–14. doi: 10.2174/138920110790725311. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Brown TL, et al. Characterization and formulation into solid dosage forms of a novel bacteriophage lytic against Klebsiella oxytoca. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0183510. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183510. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Laslett D, Canback B. ARAGORN, a program to detect tRNA genes and tmRNA genes in nucleotide sequences. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004;32:11–16. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkh152. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Lowe TM, Chan PP. tRNAscan-SE On-line: integrating search and context for analysis of transfer RNA genes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44:W54–57. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkw413. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Merritt, J. H., Kadouri, D. E. & O’Toole, G. A. Growing and analyzing static biofilms. Curr Protoc Microbiol Chapter 1, Unit 1B 1, 10.1002/9780471729259.mc01b01s00 (2005). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 36.Grissa I, Vergnaud G, Pourcel C. CRISPRFinder: a web tool to identify clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007;35:W52–57. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkm360. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Shkoporov AN, et al. PhiCrAss001 represents the most abundant bacteriophage family in the human gut and infects Bacteroides intestinalis. Nat Commun. 2018;9:4781. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-07225-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Seed KD, Lazinski DW, Calderwood SB, Camilli A. A bacteriophage encodes its own CRISPR/Cas adaptive response to evade host innate immunity. Nature. 2013;494:489–491. doi: 10.1038/nature11927. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Burmistrz M, et al. Functional Analysis of Porphyromonas gingivalis W83 CRISPR-Cas Systems. J Bacteriol. 2015;197:2631–2641. doi: 10.1128/JB.00261-15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Burmistrz M, Pyrc K. CRISPR-Cas Systems in Prokaryotes. Pol J Microbiol. 2015;64:193–202. doi: 10.5604/01.3001.0009.2114. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Castillo David E., Nanda Sonali, Keri Jonette E. Propionibacterium (Cutibacterium) acnes Bacteriophage Therapy in Acne: Current Evidence and Future Perspectives. Dermatology and Therapy. 2018;9(1):19–31. doi: 10.1007/s13555-018-0275-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Zhu Y, et al. Porphyromonas gingivalis and Treponema denticola synergistic polymicrobial biofilm development. PLoS One. 2013;8:e71727. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0071727. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Brown Teagan, Petrovski Steve, Chan Hiu, Angove Michael, Tucci Joseph. Semi-Solid and Solid Dosage Forms for the Delivery of Phage Therapy to Epithelia. Pharmaceuticals. 2018;11(1):26. doi: 10.3390/ph11010026. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Routy B, et al. Gut microbiome influences efficacy of PD-1-based immunotherapy against epithelial tumors. Science. 2018;359:91–97. doi: 10.1126/science.aan3706. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Kuczma MP, et al. The impact of antibiotic usage on the efficacy of chemoimmunotherapy is contingent on the source of tumor-reactive T cells. Oncotarget. 2017;8:111931–111942. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.22953. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Hannigan, G. D., Duhaime, M. B., Ruffin, M. T. T., Koumpouras, C. C. & Schloss, P. D. Diagnostic Potential and Interactive Dynamics of the Colorectal Cancer Virome. MBio9, 10.1128/mBio.02248-18 (2018). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]

Articles from Scientific Reports are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES